One-sided games are rarely a good thing

If you are any kind of sports observer, fan or journalist, you fixate on
the great games that you witness.

When I say great games, please note the term is subjective and open to
interpretation but I’m referring to ones that hang in the balance until the
final minutes/seconds. Why? Because even if the game does not meet the
eyeball test, I’m at least entertained because I don’t know who is going
to win. I have been following sports diligently since 1982, when I was
10 years old. I watched a few games here and there before that time but
I would not consider it to be diligent.

Doing the math, that adds up to 37 years. In that span, I have seen
numerous events that I still reference to this day on all levels of sports (high
school, college and professional). I would even include youth sports.

In that span, however, I have seen many more one-sided games. I am one of
these bat bleep crazy people that is fine with a low scoring game as long as
it hangs in the balance. When people ask, do you want a high or low scoring
game, I frame my answer by asking, “If my favorite team is not involved
will I keep watching?” The most recent Super Bowl was described as boring
because the final score was New England Patriots 13, Los Angeles Rams 3.
I had no rooting interest but I kept watching because the game was
competitive.

As for blowout losses, I watched every second of Super Bowl XXIV because
my favorite NFL team, the San Francisco 49ers blasted the Denver Broncos
55-10. I can make a similar case for the 1995 college football National
Championship game, in which the Nebraska Cornhuskers (my alma mater)
boatraced the Florida Gators 62-24. The common denominator was having
a rooting interest. However, I lost interest very quickly in Super Bowl XXXVI
when the Baltimore Ravens blasted the New York Giants 34-7. Why? Because
I have no rooting interest in either team.

Are one-sided games a good thing? In general, I would say no but there are
exceptions. Occasionally blowouts are OK but continuous ones, not so much.
If your team constantly wins decisively, it gives you an inflated idea of how
good you are and then you are surprised when your equal or superior
challenges you. Conversely, if you are a team that consistently loses in decisive
fashion, you become demoralized and apathetic.

From a player standpoint, one-sided games are not good because there is a
tendency to lose focus and make fundamental mistakes that could be costly
later in the season. From a fan or media perspective, it’s not fun but it is much
more palatable when the team you are rooting for or covering is the victor.
From a media standpoint, coaches and players are going to be in a better mood
when doing postgame interviews.

As a for instance, suppose your team is good (how good is open to
interpretation) and you beat an inferior team by 30-plus points. The narrative
becomes, “We handled our business but it’s not a barometer of how well we
played.”

Blowout wins, however, can serve a purpose for both the winning and losing
side. It gives you a chance to remove your starters so as not to unnecessarily
risk injury and subsequently gives the players buried on the depth chart a
chance to play. You never know, maybe the player shows you the ability they
have not shown yet and can turn into a valuable contributor.

Therein lies the ongoing conversation of is it better to load your nonleague
schedule with tough opponents or load it with lesser foes to get victories and
build confidence? The only scenario where the former makes sense is if a)
You know you have a great team that is mentally strong or b) Are in a league
that is competitively limiting. The latter situation makes sense if a program is
rebuilding or has experienced a lack of success. After all, confidence is a
huge thing in athletics. Within reason, I can go along with this approach but
if you make the nonleague slate too inferior, it could lead to a Fool’s Gold
winning record.

I have always believed in a mixture of quality for nonleague foes, mainly
because roster talent and/or skill levels are going to fluctuate from year-to-year.
Have one opponent that you know you will beat handily. Have one opponent
that is a coin flip. Have one opponent that is better than you.

Occasional one-sided games are fine within reason but not a steady stream of
them.